From owner-freebsd-current Wed Sep 4 19:10:24 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id TAA14352 for current-outgoing; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 19:10:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from austin.polstra.com (austin.polstra.com [206.213.73.10]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA14347 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 19:10:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from austin.polstra.com (jdp@localhost) by austin.polstra.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA20630; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 19:09:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609050209.TAA20630@austin.polstra.com> To: jkh@time.cdrom.com Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Latest Current build failure Date: Wed, 04 Sep 1996 19:09:33 -0700 From: John Polstra Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Jordan wrote: > I think I'm coming around to the best "solution" of all to this, > at least from my personal perspective, and that's to do nothing > and leave -current exactly as it is. I've been reluctant to say it, but I tend to agree with that. The event that triggered this thread wasn't even really a problem with -current. It was cockpit error, or network Bermuda Triangle syndrome, or something like that. Nothing coming out of this thread would have made any difference. About the idea of having moving cutoff dates representing "better" not-quite-current versions: The same people who ignore the Handbook's caveats about -current would also ignore the "FreeBSD-recent" releases, and continue to get -current. "If recent is good, then current must be better!" And they would continue to complain when things didn't go just so for them. > I'm tired out just talking about it now. :-) Me too. Bye! John -- John Polstra jdp@polstra.com John D. Polstra & Co., Inc. Seattle, Washington USA "Self-knowledge is always bad news." -- John Barth